Whether or not documents to be submitted to the prosecutor's office of administrative secretary also may be prepared at the request of others.

No administrative clerk, other than a judicial clerk, shall engage in the preparation of documents submitted to a prosecutor's office at the request of another person.

Article 2 of the Administrative and Judicial Act, Article 2 of the Judicial Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 80No2074 delivered on November 19, 1980

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant 1:

Article 2 (1) of the Judicial Documents Act provides that a judicial secretary shall prepare documents submitted to a court and a prosecutor's office in remuneration at the request of another person. Paragraph (3) of the same Article provides that the contents and scope of the duties referred to in paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree, and Article 3 provides that a person who is not a judicial secretary shall not engage in a business referred to in Article 2. Therefore, it is evident that a person who is not a judicial secretary may not engage in the preparation of documents submitted to a prosecutor's office on commission of

According to Article 2 of the Administrative No. 2 of the Administrative No. 2, the Act provides that the business of preparing documents to be submitted to an administrative agency upon commission of another person and documents concerning the rights and duties of residents or certification of facts, and the preparation of documents to be submitted to the public prosecutor's office which is an administrative agency refers to the affairs of the administrative secretary.

However, according to Article 2 of the Administrative Documents and Judicial Act, it is stipulated that "the above main sentence will be excluded from those specifically provided for in other Acts", so even if the prosecutor's office belongs to the category of administrative agency, such as the theory of the lawsuit, the preparation of documents to the prosecutor's office provided for in Article 2 of the above Judicial Documents and Judicial Act, which is another law, shall be excluded from the affairs of the administrative secretary. Therefore, the theory of different views cannot be adopted.

2. Although Defendant 2 refers to the imposition of an excessive disposition, it is obvious that the case of this case for which a fine is imposed, it does not constitute a legitimate ground for objection, so the theory of lawsuit is groundless as it is clearly in Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed without any justifiable reason. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)